2018 CA Primary Election - Proposition 69
This is the summary of Prop 69 from the Secretary of State's website:
"Requires that certain revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law be used only for transportation purposes and generally prohibits Legislature from diverting funds to other purposes. Fiscal Impact: No direct effect on the amount of state and local revenues or costs but could affect how some monies are spent."
A bit of history is in order. Last April the CA Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 and it was signed into law by Governor Moonbeam. It raised the tax on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon. It raised the tax on diesel fuel by 20 cents per gallon and increased the sales/use tax on diesel from 1.75% to 5.25%. It also raised vehicle registration fees.
Proposition 69 is an attempt to force that Legislature to spend the revenues generated by SB1 on transportation projects only. The Los Angeles Times' endorsement of a Yes vote on Prop 69 points out the following:
"The measure would require that the new revenue go into special accounts that could be spent exclusively on transportation. This isn't a new concept. Californians have passed constitutional amendments to guarantee that certain fuel taxes and license fees are reserved for transportation projects. Proposition 69 similarly amends the state Constitution to ensure that revenue generated from the diesel sales tax increase and the new transportation improvement fee in SB 1 are dedicated to transportation spending."
The LAT is referring to Prop 42 and Prop 1a, both of which were designed to make sure that gas tax revenue would only be spent on transportation projects. In 2010, then Governor Schwarzenegger pulled off a bait and switch where the sales tax on gasoline was reduced but the excise tax on it was raised. That allowed revenues from the excise taxes to be diverted to plug holes in the budget.
The nonpartisan CA Legislative Analyst Office published a 12 page study about SB1 and it pointed out the following:
"Though SB 1 establishes various long-term performance outcome measures for highway conditions, the legislation does not include specific mechanisms for holding the administration accountable for achieving these outcomes nor does it set interim benchmarks against which to measure the administration’s progress in the near term. To improve its oversight of the new funding, we encourage the Legislature to begin now considering how to hold the administration accountable in the near term. For instance, the Legislature could establish in state law interim outcome measures against which to measure the administration’s progress in achieving the longer-term outcomes contained in SB 1. It also could consider consequences should the administration not achieve these interim outcome measures."
Proposition 69 is a good start down the road to ensure that revenues from gas taxes of all forms are not spent on anything but transportation projects. The issue of attempting to repeal SB1 is for the November election, should proponents of the repeal proposal manage to qualify a measure for that ballot. Meanwhile, I recommend a vote of Yes on Prop 69.
"Requires that certain revenues generated by a 2017 transportation funding law be used only for transportation purposes and generally prohibits Legislature from diverting funds to other purposes. Fiscal Impact: No direct effect on the amount of state and local revenues or costs but could affect how some monies are spent."
A bit of history is in order. Last April the CA Legislature passed Senate Bill 1 and it was signed into law by Governor Moonbeam. It raised the tax on gasoline by 12 cents per gallon. It raised the tax on diesel fuel by 20 cents per gallon and increased the sales/use tax on diesel from 1.75% to 5.25%. It also raised vehicle registration fees.
Proposition 69 is an attempt to force that Legislature to spend the revenues generated by SB1 on transportation projects only. The Los Angeles Times' endorsement of a Yes vote on Prop 69 points out the following:
"The measure would require that the new revenue go into special accounts that could be spent exclusively on transportation. This isn't a new concept. Californians have passed constitutional amendments to guarantee that certain fuel taxes and license fees are reserved for transportation projects. Proposition 69 similarly amends the state Constitution to ensure that revenue generated from the diesel sales tax increase and the new transportation improvement fee in SB 1 are dedicated to transportation spending."
The LAT is referring to Prop 42 and Prop 1a, both of which were designed to make sure that gas tax revenue would only be spent on transportation projects. In 2010, then Governor Schwarzenegger pulled off a bait and switch where the sales tax on gasoline was reduced but the excise tax on it was raised. That allowed revenues from the excise taxes to be diverted to plug holes in the budget.
The nonpartisan CA Legislative Analyst Office published a 12 page study about SB1 and it pointed out the following:
"Though SB 1 establishes various long-term performance outcome measures for highway conditions, the legislation does not include specific mechanisms for holding the administration accountable for achieving these outcomes nor does it set interim benchmarks against which to measure the administration’s progress in the near term. To improve its oversight of the new funding, we encourage the Legislature to begin now considering how to hold the administration accountable in the near term. For instance, the Legislature could establish in state law interim outcome measures against which to measure the administration’s progress in achieving the longer-term outcomes contained in SB 1. It also could consider consequences should the administration not achieve these interim outcome measures."
Proposition 69 is a good start down the road to ensure that revenues from gas taxes of all forms are not spent on anything but transportation projects. The issue of attempting to repeal SB1 is for the November election, should proponents of the repeal proposal manage to qualify a measure for that ballot. Meanwhile, I recommend a vote of Yes on Prop 69.
posted by me at 7:20 AM
<< Home